Memory Alpha:Files for deletion
Image:Warp factor chart old.png ;Image:Warp factor chart old.png: A chart showing the relation between warp factors and "normal speeds" - which is based solely on non-canon background information and on top of that, not really useful anyway. -- Cid Highwind 10:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC) *I seem to remember us deleting something similar to this... Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC) *...And way too small. Delete! --''Six of Six'' ''Talk'' Ω 13:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', because it is Saddam's last wish that we don't. --From Andoria with Love 05:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete,' not needed, and may be inaccurate. I seem to remember more spikes in there than just a curve. - AJ Halliwell 23:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Janus VI colony render.jpg ;Image:Janus VI colony render.jpg This image is a duplicate of the existing Image:Janus VI colony.jpg, and at the time of this post is also orphaned. In addition, this image is taken from Startrek.com, rather than being a screencap, which probably makes it a copyvio. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC) : (edited) It's not orphaned as I just updated the The Devil in the Dark page -- you have to account for some time in editing. ;) I didn't replace the existing one so as not to overwrite someone's work, as a courtesy (hence the "duplicate"), but the new image shows a bit more and in better detail. ... There are other images on this site from StarTrek.com, is this a problem? Screen captures are arguably a copyright violation UNLESS you consider it "fair use" practice in discussing the work. I would hope Paramount wouldn't deny MA fair use of their promotional images, as they generate publicity for their franchise. --Kojirovance 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Startrek.com images are not necessarily meant to be promotional. In addition, look at the discussions above for how screencaps count as fair use, and other images, say from books or websites, do not. Screencaps are a very small portion (one frame out of tens of thousands). Those other images you pointed out were uploaded today, and probably need to be deleted as well. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC) :Okay, fair enough. ;) Go ahead and revert The Devil in the Dark page, I'm not sure I have privileges to do that.--Kojirovance 17:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC) ::Anyone can revert edits. On the 'diff' screen, just hit the 'edit' button for the older revision. :) -- Sulfur 18:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) :::Done, thanks for the tip. --Kojirovance 18:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', because 51% of Americans voted for it to get turfed. --From Andoria with Love 05:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Gorn starship renders ;Image:New-front-1-540x287.jpg and Image:New-rear-1-540x287.jpg These images were taken from Startrek.com, and therefore do not fall under "fair use". --OuroborosCobra talk 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC) :question'On what reasoning do you say they do not constitute "fair use"? They're no more or less so than any other screencap/render, are they not?Capt Christopher Donovan 07:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ::Screen-caps are 1/90000 of the product, and they don't deliver enough of the product that someone could skip buying the DVDs or watching the shows. These images from an article on StarTrek.com are a much larger part of the product, the whole product. StarTrek.com could argue, and they would be right, that are posting of these images would take traffic away from their site, and hurt it in a significant way. We would be using their own work against them. Same for magazines, or the image of the Enterprise-J from the calendar. --Bp 09:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC) :::Its a misconception that a single frame in a series of 88000 is free for fair use. its free for fair use because its free to air broadcast. for the purpose of copyright, websites are printed material, and don't fall under fair use, except for reviews. Free to air is fair use under the Beta-max ruling. --[[User:Sdamon|''Six of Six]] ''Talk'' Ω 11:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) I beg to differ. Read Fair use#Amount and substantiality. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) :::Wikipedia:Harper_%26_Row%2C_Publishers%2C_Inc._v._Nation_Enters. and wikipedia:Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (both sited in that section) are examples of complete works and less than 400 characters out of a 400 page book. The full copy is fair use, and less than 1 1000th of the other was infringement. copyright, which has been quite slow to adapt, may see a single frame as a full work in and of itself (in fact, in motion picture's infancy, a single frame was a full work.) The fact that its free to air, and therefore posting a single frame does not represent a significant effect on their ability to profit from the works. Copying an image out of a magazine, and off a website, does. Its really not the amount in this case, its the origin. --''Six of Six'' ''Talk'' Ω 12:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ::::Also read the Biz Markie example. In the case of music (and by extrapolation other types of media), a significant, legal recognizable portion lifted is not considered "fair use." So claiming that one out of ten thousand frames is okay ignores other precedents. A frame of a unique starship rendering, captured and used, is not "fair use." But often, such a snip used for the purpose of commentary or review is supported. ... This is all theoretical, and until a a real world copyright or trademark lawyer weighs in, probably not reliable. Since Paramount hasn't clobbered MA yet, it likely won't happen. After the embarrassing Mattel and Paramount shenanigans of the early 90s, corporations have learned that some borderline fair use clipping often strengthens and supports their franchise, by providing valuable word-of-mouth advertising. My two cents is that these images are not canon, are clearly not fully rendered and therefore not suitable for airing (or use as MA reference). They're production stills, and therefore a real world perspective item. -- Kojirovance 14:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC) :One can argue as to "Fair Use", which I'm not an expert on, but the CONTENT of the render, the Gorn ship, IS in fact, canon. That is what one class of Gorn starship looks like in the 23rd century. The model was not fully textured, etc, because it was only meant to be seen in "long shots".Capt Christopher Donovan 22:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete, because Borat is starting to make fun of us. --From Andoria with Love 05:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC) **Who is Borat?--OuroborosCobra talk 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) *** Wikipedia:Borat. — THOR ''=/\='' 16:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete,' though an external link should be on the Gorn starship (putting it there now...) to the page on StarTrek.com where this is, cause it should be noted that a 'partial rendering' of the thing exists, even if we can't have the picture ourselves. - AJ Halliwell 23:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) stsf1 & stsf2 ;Image:Stsf1.jpg and Image:Stsf2.jpg: The article these were uploaded for, Star Trek Simulation Forum, is a copyright violation and about to be deleted, so these images can be turfed as well. --From Andoria with Love 05:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC) *I had to remind Shran to nominate this, so I guess that means I'm going to vote delete :-) --OuroborosCobra talk 05:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete stsf2', but perhaps the first one could be useful for Star Trek.com or Star Trek in general. nah, Delete both. - AJ Halliwell 23:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Image:Alfrewoodard.jpg ;Image:Alfrewoodard.jpg An orphaned image. It has been for a while. We already have Image:Lily Sloane.jpg, taken from a screen cap of the character she played. In addition, this image is not cited, and may not even fall under "fair use". --OuroborosCobra talk 05:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', because I said so. --From Andoria with Love 05:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', because I agreed. :) 17:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', because Shran said so. - AJ Halliwell 23:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Image:Front3qrtr-s.jpg ;Image:Front3qrtr-s.jpg : Nice rendering of Aeroshuttle. But it's still non-canon. 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC) * Delete, has this not been deleted before? - AJ Halliwell 23:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ::KEEP'''No, we hashed it out and decided that it was a keeper, as it is the official mesh, rendered BY one of it's developers. There was a version of this image that was scanned from the Trek Magazine, that was called out for Copyvio, so when Rob himself put this up on another site it replaced the "problem" version.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC) :::Where was that "hashed out", and by whom - care to provide a link? I see an image not created for the show itself, and not uploaded by the creator itself. That makes it non-canon, and probably a copyright violation. It surely isn't copyright:paramount&fair-use in this case. '''Delete, I think. -- Cid Highwind 09:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC) ::I can't find the discussion now for some reason, but to answer your points: 1. The MESH was created for the show, just never used. It IS the CANON mesh made by the Voyager FX team. 2. The mesh was uploaded to a public forum for public display and use BY one of the authors and WITH permission. As long as the image is properly credited as being property of Paramount, it should fall under fair use.Capt Christopher Donovan 11:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ::Edit: The mesh images were posted at Hobbytallk.comCapt Christopher Donovan 12:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ::: Memory_Alpha:Canon_Policy#Restricted_Validity_Resources :::: - Background information from the production staff << this qualifies. A production staff member provided the shooting model, though it was never used on screen. would this be any different than the galaxy yacht had they built a shooting model? :::: - Portions of sets, props, makeup, and costumes to the extent not seen on-screen in an Episode, even if they existed in real life << its digital, but it exists. ::: --[[User:Sdamon|''6/6]] ''Subspace'' 12:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC) :::::While this particular image had not previously been deleted, another rendering of the Aeroshuttle had been previously deleted – it is saved in my "Deleted MA images" folder. Using the creation date of that image, I was able to find that it had been deleted on 8 September and have found the discussion, which can be found here. With that discussion in mind, if this image is being used with permission by its creator (not Paramount, as it doesn't fall to them), then it can be kept as a background image. Otherwise, it is a copyright violation and should be deleted. If this is the actual mesh created by VOY's F/X team, then I see no reason why it can't be kept if we get permission to use it. --From Andoria with Love 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Image:GKelKaboom1.jpg, Image:GHidGenral1.jpg ;Image:GKelKaboom1.jpg, Image:GHidGenral1.jpg : Two images uploaded by someone who just contributes to MA/de otherwise. I guess still a problem with the upload function, somehow sending images here instead... -- Cid Highwind 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', if not useful and on accident. - AJ Halliwell 23:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' ONLY if your sure they cant be used in some article about the spoonheads. --''6/6'' ''Subspace'' 12:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Image:Hugh and Livingston.jpg ;Image:Hugh and Livingston.jpg : Duplicate of existing Image:Livingston fish.jpg, uncropped with no focus on the subject of the image. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 04:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC) *'Keep', The subject of the image is not just Livingston but Hugh as well. It's a great picture, Keep it. *'Delete'. It is being used in the article about the fish, not about Hugh. In addition, the image it is a near duplicate of is used in said article. It would not make sense to have both, and the other one illustrates the fish better. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC) *If we are choosing between the two, I'd keep the one with Hugh and the fish. it illustrates context from an episode and would be useful on Hugh's page and on the episode summary. The picture of Livingston alone is valid to Livisngston's own article and is valid, but since the two are so contentiously similar, maybe we should find a different pic of Livingston? -- Captain M.K.B. 18:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Image:Kevin Parti card.jpg I don't think this has any Star Trek relation -- Spocky talk 09:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Image:Trailer Court Justice.JPG Image:Trailer Court Justice.JPG - No Trek Relation -- Spocky talk 09:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC) *All I can say is "eeck!" Oh, and Delete ----Willie 23:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)